T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T S HA B ON DY L AMARS I MP S ON , P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. M . E V A N S , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 11- 15400 D . C . N o . 2 : 0 5 - c v - 0 0 6 4 0 - J A MDA D ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te rn D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia J ohn A . M e nde z , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i tt e d M a r c h 15, 2013 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o rn ia B efo re: N O O N A N , F IS H E R an d N G U Y E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. S h ab o n d y S im p s o n , as ta te p r is o n e r , ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d e n ia l o f h is 28 U . S . C . § 2254 habe a s pe t i t i on, w hi c h the di s tr i c tc ourtc ons true d a s am ot i on f or l e a ve t o a m e nd S i m ps on’ s pr i orhabe a s pe t i t i on pur s ua ntt o W oo ds v. Carey , 525 F . 3d 886 ( 9th C i r . 2008) . W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on unde r28 U . S . C . §§ 1291 a nd 2253, 

# FI LED APR29 2 013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS2

a n d a f f irm o n a n a lte rn a tiv e g r o u n d . See Y ba rra v. McD an i el , 656 F . 3d 984, 992 n. 3 ( 9th C i r . 2011) ( e xpl a i ni ng tha tw e m a y a f f i rm the de ni a l of

habe a s r e l i e f

on any groun d sup po rt ed by the re cord). 1 . A l tho ug h S i m pson fi l ed hi s pet i t i on af t erhi s not i ce of appeal had b ee n f ile d , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt r e ta in e d ju r is d ic tio n to d e n y atim e ly - f ile d m o tio n f

o rr e lie f . See F e d . R . C iv . P . 6 2 .1 ( a ) ( 2 ) . W e th u s h a v e ju r is d ic tio n to c o n s id e rth is ap p e a l. 2. T he di s tr i c tc ourtabus e d i t s di s c r e t i on i n de ny i ng S i m ps on’ s m ot i on on the ba s i s of

de l a y , hi s l a c k of

di l i ge nc e , a nd pr e

j udi c e t o the s t a t e . I n a dopt i ng the m a gi s tr a t e j udge ’ s r e c om m e nda t i on t o de ny S i m ps on’ s c ons truc t i ve m ot i on f or l e a ve t o a m e nd, the di s tr i c tc ourtf a i l e d t o c ons i de rthe f

a c ttha tS i m ps on ha d not p r e v io u s lyb e e n a f

f o r d e d a n o p p o rtu n ityto a m e n d h is p e titio n . See Casw el l v. Calde r on , 3 6 3 F .3 d 8 3 2 , 8 3 7 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) ( lis tin g f a c to r s r e le v a n t to c o n s id e r a tio n o f

am o tio n f

o rle a v e to a m e n d ac o m p la in t) ; M axw el l v. L ucky C o n s t. C o. , 710 F . 2d 1395, 1399 ( 9th C i r . 1983) ( “ F a i l ur e t o c ons i de rpe rt i ne nt fa ct ors c on st i tut es an abuse of di sc re t i on . ”) . F urtherm ore, the di stri ctcourt ’ s c on cl usi on thatS i m pson di d n otac t d ilig e n tlyis illo g ic a l a n d u n s u p p o rte d b y th e r e c o r d . I t w a s u n r e a s o n ab le to f au lt S i m pson for the t i m e he s penti n st at e c ou rtexhaust i ng hi s c l ai m un der C u n n in g h a m v . Ca lifo rn ia , 549 U . S . 270 ( 2007) , w hi c h he w a s r e qui r e d t o do3

u n d e rA E D P A . See 28 U . S . C . § 2254( b) . T he di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s r e l i a nc e on S im p s o n ’s ab ilityto c o rr e c tlya n s w e raq u e s tio n ab o u t th e p r o c e d u r a l h is to ry o f h is p o st co n v i ct i o n l i t i g at i o n w as al so u n w i se. A s W oods re cogn i ze s, pro se habeas pet i t i on er s are oft en no tw el l -ver se d i n the com pl ex procedural rul es thatgo vern f e de r a l habe a s pe t i t i ons . F orthi s r e a s on, “ [ a ] doc um e ntf i l e d pr o s e i s ‘ t o be l i be r a l l y c ons true d, ’ a nd a‘ pr o s e c om pl a i nt , how e ve ri na rt f ul l y pl e a de d, m us tbe hel d t o l es s s tri ng entst andards than form al pl ea di ng s dra ft ed by l aw ye rs . ’ ” W oods , 525 F . 3d a t889–90 ( quot i ng E r i c k s on v . P ardus , 551 U . S . 89, 94 ( 2007) ( pe rc ur i a m ) ) . I tw a s f

urthe runr e a s onabl e t o f aul tS i m ps on f

orf a i l i ng t o i nc l ude h i s C unni ngham cl ai m i n h i s Jul y 200 8 m ot i on t o am end. T he C unni ngham c la im w a s n o t e x h au s te din s ta te c o u rt u n til th e C a lif o rn iaS u p r e m e C o u rt d e n ie d h is s ta te h ab eas p et i t i o n o n Ju l y 1 6 , 2 0 0 8

— th e d ay af terhe m a i l e d hi s m ot i on t o a m e nd. F in ally, an y p re

ju d ice to th e s tate th at m ay h av e r es u lt ed b ec au se S im p so n ’s i ni t i al habeas pet i t i on w as re sol ved o n the m er i t s a tthe t i m e the di stri ctcourtrul ed on the m ot i on t o a m e nd c oul d ha ve be e n pr e ve nt e d by the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s pr om pt c ons ol i da t i on of

S i m ps on’ s f

i r s ta nd s e c ond habe a s pe t i t i ons a s r e qui r e d byT o th e e x te n t th e d is tr ic t c o u rt b e lie v e d th a t r e s p o n s ib ilityf o rth e d e la y in 1 c o n s o lid a tio n c o u ld b e p la c e d o n S im p s o n b e c au s e h e f a ile d to in d ic a te o n h is s e c ond habe a s pe t i t i on tha the c urr e nt l y ha d ahabe a s c a s e pe ndi ng, w e r e m i nd the d i stri ctco u rto f th e affi rm at i v e d u ty i m p o sed o n d i stri ctco u rt s b y W oods

— ad u ty g ro u n d ed i n co u rt s’ o b l i g at i o n t o l i b eral l y co n stru e d o cu m en t s fi l ed b y p ro se l i t i ga nt s . 525 F . 3d a t889–90. S i m pl e a dm i ni s tr a t i ve pr oc e dur e s tha tha ve a l r e a dy b een ad o p t ed b y o th er d i stri ct s i n th i s ci rcu i t

— assi g n i n g al l h ab eas p et i t i o n s b y a p a rtic u la rin m a te to th e s a m e ju d ic ia l o f f ic e r s — c o u ld p r e v e n t th e d e la y in c o n s o lid a tio n th a t o c c u rr e d in th is ap p e a l. See D . A r iz . L o c . R . 3 .7 ( e ) ; C .D . C a l. G e n . O r d e r0 8 - 0 5 § 2 .2 ; id . G en. O rder05 -07 at8– 9; N . D . C al . G en. O rder 4 4 (D )(5 ). In l i g h to f th e affi rm at i v e d u ty i m p o sed b y W oods , the di stri ctcourt c oul d s i m i l a r l y a doptpr oc e dur e s tha tf a c i l i t a t e e xpe di e ntc ons ol i da t i on of pe t i t i ons fi l ed b y p ro se p et i t i o n ers. 4 W o o d s. S i m ps on f

i l e d hi s s e c ond habe a s pe t i t i on i n N ove m be r2008— e i ght 1 m on ths before hi s i ni t i al habeas pet i t i on w as deni ed on the m er i t s. A dd i t i on al l y, at the t i m e S i m pson m ov ed t o add the C unni ngham c l a i m , S i m ps on’ s J ul y 2008 m ot i on t o a m e nd w a s pe ndi ng be f or e the di s tr i c tc ourt , a nd tha tm ot i on w a s not rul e d on unt i l f

ourm onths a f

t e rS i m ps on f

i l e d hi s s e c ond habe a s pe t i t i on. H a d the tw o p e titio n s b e e n tim e lyc o n s o lid a te d , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o u ld h a v e ru le d o n b o th m ot i ons a tthe s a m e t i m e . T e l l i ngl y , the c ourtdi d not de ny the e a r l i e rm ot i on on the grou nd thatS i m pson ’ s del ayi n fi l i ng i thad p re j ud i ce d the st at e. 3. W e non ethel es s a ff

i rm the di stri ctcourton the al t ernat i ve grou nd that a m e ndm e ntw oul d ha ve be e n f ut i l e be c aus e S i m ps on’ s pr opos e d C unni ngham c l a i m w a s t i m e - ba rr e d. A s r e l e va nthe r e , the one - y e a rs t a tut e of l i m i t a t i ons runs f r om the l a t e s tof

e i the r“ the da t e on w hi c h the j udgm e ntbe c a m e f i na l by the5

c onc l us i on of

di r e c tr e vi e w , ” 28 U . S . C . § 2244( d) ( 1) ( A ) , or“ the da t e on w hi c h the c ons t i tut i ona l r i ghta s s e rt e d w a s i ni t i a l l y r e c ogni z e d by the S upr e m e C ourt , i f the r ig h t h a s b e e n n e w lyr e c o g n iz e d b y th e S up r e m e C o u rt a n d m a d e r e tr o a c tiv e ly appl i cabl e t o cas es on col l at er al re vi ew , ” id . § 2 24 4(d)(1)(C). S i m ps on’ s s e nt e nc e be c a m e f i na l on A pr i l 22, 2003, a nd e xc l udi ng pe r i ods o f s ta tu to ry a n d e q u itab le to llin g , h e w a ite dm o r e th a n o n e y e a ra f te rth a t d a te before s ee ki ng re l i ef

un der C unni ngham . T h e r e f o r e , S im p s o n ’s p r o p o s e d c la im w as t i m el y onl y i f Cunni ngham i t s e l f “ ne w l y r e c ogni z e d” the r i ghttha the s ought t o a s s e rta nd appl i e s r e tr oa c t i ve l y . Y e t , i n B u t ler v. C u rry , 5 2 8 F .3 d 6 2 4 , 6 2 8 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ) , w e h e ld th a t C unni ngham d i d n o tan n o u n ce a n ew ru l e o f l aw b ecau se i t s r e s ul t“ w a s c l e a r l y di c t a t e d by the S upr e m e C ourt ’ s [ pr i or ] S i xth A m e ndm e nt case l aw , i n p art i cu l ar b y B lake l yv . W as hi ngton , 5 4 2 U . S . 2 9 6 (2 0 0 4 ). ” B ecau se

“ the S upr e m e C ourta nnounc e d ane w rul e i n B lake l yv . W as hi ngton , ” i t“ doe s not appl y r etroac t i vel y t o a conv i ct i on thatw as fi nal before thatdeci si on w as anno un ce d. ” Sc hardt

v . P ay ne , 414 F . 3d 1025, 1038 ( 9th C i r . 2005) . S i m ps on w ai t ed m ore than o ne ye araf t er B la ke lyw a s d e c id e d b e f o r e s e e k in g r e lie f

. C ons e que nt l y hi s pr opos e d c l a i m i s t i m e - ba rr e d. AF F I RME D.